I've wondered since how could Duncan's readers not see right through her literary b.s.? I noticed it immediately. How could supposedly smart readers (who also happen to be writers) like Ron Rosenbaum and Kevin Rodderick (who apparently couldn't tell if Duncan's L.A. Lunar society was real and called the Wit "a personal favorite of mine") be so easily bamboozled? Reader Poussin has some thoughts:
Duncan didn't have readers. She had fans. She had girl crushes, lesbian crushes, young male crushes, crusty old git crushes, etc. Read her comments, where she permitted them. Often you will see remarks about her looks. This is why there are so many defenders. It isn't about plagiarism to them. Beauty will always ease misdeed. There are as many excuses as the day is long. How many excuses have we seen already?See, Duncan was perfect for people. She filled a need in their desperations, however she did that. There was a sexual subtext to much of her fandom. She was what these fans wanted to be, and they felt golden for having found her. She wrote into that myth, using her charmed Venice lifestyle in funky hippie cottage, darling boyfriend, expensive habits and tastes.
It's true, Duncan often posted photos of herself but did she really seduce her readers? Is this why it's so hard for them to admit they were duped? Why do so many tie their identity to this woman? Why do they personally feel insulted when her fake front is exposed? Why do they take their anger out on those who expose the truth?